2013/12/12 Leo Broukhis <l...@mailcom.com> > Joking aside, the ruble sign is intended as a character adaptable to > Western-style typefaces (roman/italic, serif/sanserif, etc), and U+0554 > doesn't easily lend itself to that. >
Given that the standard is widely adaptable, just means that U+0554 is *also* usable in western styles, without being restricted to the Cyrillic script, even if the character is encoded in a Cyrcillic block. This just means a change in a non-normative property, not a reencoding. A Ruble will remain a Ruble in all scripts, just like the Euro symbol, or the Bath symbol. Of course this does not preclude the possible future need of glyph distinctions using variation selectors, where it would make sense, but for now, all usages are linked to the same currency within all its glyphic variations, even if the default glyph shown in UTC charts uses the normalized form. Then each font designed for some style in a given script will adapt their glyph mapped by default for its own need, including adaptation of relative metrics while the normative glyph design is not really changed. One thing we could think about: some currencies have a normative glyph design, some others not. The normative form should have an encoding with its 1st variation selector, when the font would be free to adapt the default glyph (used without the variation selector) more freely according to its general design. So U+20AC,VS1 would be an Euro with its normative glyph design, but U+20AC alone would continue to be adaptable. Same thing for U+0554 with the generic Ruble (but U+0554,VS1 would be the current Russian Ruble glyph only, excluding other Rubles used elsewhere or in other periods of history). Same thing for the Bath, the Won (may be two possible designs between North and South Korea), the Yuan, the Yen (depending on evolutions of the JIS standards), or even the Dollar (or historic Peso or Thaller), that we will not reencode.